You are here: Home / Archives for position

U.S. Is Said to Scrutinize Apple’s Online Music Tactics – NYTimes.com

May 26, 2010 By Leave a Comment

The Justice Department is examining Apple’s tactics in the market for digital music, and its staff members have talked to major music labels and Internet music companies, according to several people briefed on the conversations.

The antitrust inquiry is in the early stages, these people say, and the conversations have revolved broadly around the dynamics of selling music online.

But people briefed on the inquiries also said investigators had asked in particular about recent allegations that Apple used its dominant market position to persuade music labels to refuse to give the online retailer Amazon.com exclusive access to music about to be released.

All these people spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the delicacy of the matter. Representatives from Apple and Amazon declined to comment. Gina Talamona, a deputy director at the Justice Department, also declined to comment.

In March, Billboard magazine reported that Amazon was asking music labels to give it the exclusive right to sell certain forthcoming songs for one day before they went on sale more widely. In exchange, Amazon promised to include those songs in a promotion called the “MP3 Daily Deal” on its Web site.

The magazine reported that representatives of Apple’s iTunes music service were asking the labels not to participate in Amazon’s promotion, adding that Apple punished those that did by withdrawing marketing support for those songs on iTunes.

via U.S. Is Said to Scrutinize Apple’s Online Music Tactics – NYTimes.com.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , ,

U.S. Trade Policy Nears Zero Hour | National Law Journal

April 5, 2010 By

In most matters of international trade, the United States is like a popular seventh-grade girl, surrounded by throngs of admirers and wannabes.

But when it comes to math — specifically a method of calculating duties on certain imports — the United States is eating its lunch alone.

Millions of dollars each year ride on this calculation, known as “zeroing,” which is used by the Commerce Department to determine whether a foreign company is selling goods here at less than fair value. If a company is dumping its products, the U.S. government adds a duty to even out the playing field.

But virtually every one of the World Trade Organization’s 153 member countries objects to how Washington juggles the numbers. The United States has been hit with more than a dozen suits at the WTO challenging zeroing — and lost them all before the trade body’s highest court.

Now, the United States faces the prospect of retaliatory sanctions from the European Union, Japan and Mexico. A WTO arbitrator is currently weighing the first request from Europe to impose $311 million in tariffs, with a decision due as early as next week.

The Obama administration is in an awkward position. If it quits using zeroing, it will trigger the wrath of the domestic industries it benefits — primarily steel makers, but also producers of products ranging from shrimp to ball bearings to plastic bags. If it clings to zeroing in the face of WTO condemnation, American exporters will be punished by sanctions.

The official position from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is that Washington “has indicated that it intends to work to bring itself into compliance,” according to a spokeswoman.

via U.S. Trade Policy Nears Zero Hour.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Australia’s position as an International arbitration centre to be enhanced – Deacons

December 16, 2009 By Leave a Comment

The Australian position in relation to international arbitration has always been complicated by virtue of its federal system of laws which allows parties to choose to resolve their dispute “under arbitral laws other than in accordance with the internationally accepted Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).” This creates confusion and not insignificant legal difficulties concerning the interaction of different laws. Additionally, the finality sought by parties to an international arbitration is not always certain by virtue of the appeal/review powers contained in the State and Territory Commercial Arbitration Acts.  As well, there has been in recent years a general concern about the trends surrounding the nature of international arbitration with the widespread view that arbitration has become too litigious with proceedings increasingly resembling those of a court. Such complications and trends had led many to believe that Australia was unlikely to establish itself as a major player in the field of international arbitrations. In light of a new Bill currently before Parliament, all of this could now change.

In an effort to counter such trends, overcome the difficulties with Australia's federal system and in a bid to promote Australia as a centre for international arbitration and dispute resolution, the International Arbitration Amendment Bill 2009 was introduced into Parliament on 25 November 2009, following the Commonwealth Government's year long review of international commercial arbitration in Australia.

via Legal update: Australia’s position as an International arbitration centre to be enhanced – Deacons.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,
Newer Posts »